Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Clause 21

Duty to prepare and submit draft specification of appprenticeship standards: England

Amendment moved (this day): 44, in clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out such persons as the Chief Executive thinks appropriate and insert
representatives of industry, employers, sectoral bodies, the further education sector and other persons the Chief Executive thinks appropriate..(Mr. Hayes.)

Joan Humble: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 46, in clause 23, page 10, line 40, at end insert
(aa) consult representatives of industry, employers and the further education sector on the proposed new draft modifications..

John Hayes: It is good to be back to our consideration of the Bill, Mrs. Humble. Our amendments would ensure that apprenticeship standards are what employers actually desire, and would result in less bureaucracy, because those standards would not have to be revisited in response to the concerns of employers. The employment body expressed support for amendments in that spirit during the evidence sessions, which I confess is partly why we are debating it now. The CBI representative said:
priority for our members is to ensure that the apprenticeship programme encourages strong employer involvement and that the programme is more fit for purposedelivering the sort of skills that are in demand by business.
The spokesman went on to say:
The introduction of apprenticeship standards and minimum periods of time off, for example, are making our members nervous.
No doubt we shall discuss that later, when we come to the relevant parts of the Bill. The spokesman for CBI then said:
Standards are fine. It is just specific standards for minimum periods of time off that are not needed. Each framework has to ensure that it accords to the blueprint at the moment.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6-8, Q5, 12 and 19.]
I spoke earlier of the dynamic nature of skills needs and therefore the necessity of apprenticeship frameworks to respond to those changing needs. The best way for that to happen is for employers to be in the driving seat. The Minister has emphasised that he thinks so, too. For that reason, we share the view that sector skills councils are of pivotal importance. John Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce added that he was positive about the planned increase in apprenticeships and that it was a
long-term, positive thing for business and for the economy.
He supported the comments of Richard Wainer of the CBI, but emphasised:
We think that apprenticeships need to be employer led and employed focused. Obviously there has to be a high-quality programme element to them too.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 9, Q19.]
As I have said, we do not dispute that: it seems to be the orthodox view. What are apprenticeships if they are not things that appeal to employers as much as they appeal to learners? That is implicit. However, it is important that the consultation process on apprenticeship standards is right, and I am not sure that describing that process as being built on persons that the chief executive of Skills Funding thinks appropriate is as clear as saying that representatives of industry and education should be consulted. Why does the Minister consider that it is less important to consult those people than I do?

Stephen Williams: We are back to the question of consultation. We discussed before lunch in connection with my amendment, but we are now dealing with a different clause, which makes it clear that the Government envisage consultation taking place, but only with consultees determined at the discretion of the chief executive of Skills Funding or, presumably, the National Apprenticeship Service.
An apprenticeship is a triangular relationship between the employer, the employee and the training provider. The needs of employers and the ability of training providers to deliver the training that is to form part of the apprenticeship framework should be considered during the framing of standards. It would therefore be appropriate to consult employers and providers specifically. Having that in the Bill would be appropriate, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings says.
As the relationship is triangular, perhaps in future the Government ought to give some consideration to the learner voice, although that is slightly outside the scope of the amendment. As apprenticeships evolve and become more popular, not only is it necessary for the employer and the training provider to have a view on what is included in the apprenticeship qualification, but I hope that the views of the learnerthe young person or adulton the quality of provision will be considered as well.

Siôn Simon: Hello again, Mrs. Humblethat could be a song, could it not?
I have listened to the hon. Gentlemens arguments and sympathise with that they are trying to say. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings quoted Richard Wainer of the CBI as though his remarks during the oral evidence session somehow contradicted Government policy or what is in the Bill. They do not. Every word the hon. Gentleman quoted is correct.
On the issue of responsiveness, we are slightly in danger of misunderstanding how the mechanisms might work. Amendment 46 would affect even the slightest change in The Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England, which is a big documentnot big physically, but in the sense that it is very importantwhich is being widely consulted upon as we speak. The consultation is due to be reported back in mid-May. Under the amendment, even the slightest change would require a full-scale consultation with every stakeholder in the sector.

John Hayes: The document is big enough to be comprehensive, but not so big that it is bureaucratic or adds to red tape.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman put that beautifully. The document is admirable in that respect. I shall take that as a congratulatory plaudit for The Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. However, my point remainsin order to vary the SASE document by even the slightest comma, under the provisions of amendment 46 the chief executive would have to undertake a full consultation. To me, that does not constitute responsiveness.
I shall respond to the question about learner voice from the hon. Member for Bristol, West before I press on with some more details. It is anticipatedOpposition Members on both sides of the gangway should be reassuredthat consultation will be wide. The emerging National Apprenticeship Service has already established a key stakeholder group, comprising for example the CBI, FSB, TUC, AOC, ALP, TASSC and LSIS, to provide views and feedback on the SASE.

Stephen Williams: I congratulate the Minister on his acronyms but, if I interpret them all correctly, they are all learning providers and not learners.

Siôn Simon: In which case, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his extraordinary command of acronyms. The national learner panel chair is a member of the NAS stakeholder group as well, representing the views of learners.
I fully understand and support the sentiment behind the Opposition amendments and hon. Members aims in tabling them. WeI am sure that I speak for all members of the Committeemust strive to ensure that everyone with a legitimate interest has the opportunity to influence the standards set for apprenticeships in England. That includes industry bodies, employers, colleges and other providers, sector skills councils, learners and others.
The amendments relate to consultation on the drafting and modification of the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. I am sure that the Committee knows by now that we have already published the draft specification, which is out to public consultation until mid-May, as I just said. The consultation has been drawn to the attention of key stakeholders, a number of whom have been involved in its initial development. The specification and the consultation questions are widely available on the internet. I assure the Committee that it is intended that any subsequent significant modification to the published specification would be subject to a similar level of consultation before being laid before the House for parliamentary approval.
I believe that we have sufficient measures in place in the Bill to ensure that the views of all parties are taken into account, without the need for these amendments. Indeed, I would not want inadvertently to reduce the breadth of future consultations by specifying particular groups that must be consulted. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance that they wanted and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.

John Hayes: I take the point that the Minister has made, that all members of the Committee want to see consultation that is meaningful. I also take the point that he believes, as I do, that employer engagement is particularly important in developing standards. Nevertheless, for the record it would be useful to press this amendment to a Division, just to emphasise the significance of consultation with employers.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Modification of specification of apprenticeship standards for England

Amendment made: 173, in clause 23, page 11, line 9, leave out meets the requirements of and insert complies with.(Mr. Simon.)

The amendment amends the drafting of clause 23 to achieve consistency with clause 22(2).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: Clause 23 allows the Secretary of State to direct the chief executive of Skills Funding to modify:
the specification of apprenticeship standards for England...providing that the specification...as so modified, meets the requirements of section 25.
We will be debating that issue in a few moments. It would be useful, for the record, if the Minister could give some indication of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would give such a direction. We have emphasised in our considerations so far that ministerial involvement in such matters is best when it is minimal, because the apprenticeship frameworks and standards and the responsiveness of apprenticeships will be best defined by teachers, employers and the agencies charged with that mission. In what circumstances and why, when and how might such a direction be given?

Siôn Simon: The clause does not authorise or enable the Secretary of State to vary any of the conditions. Rather, it enables the Secretary of State to direct the chief executive of Skills Funding to modify the specification of apprenticeship standards for England and to make an order bringing the modified specification into effect, provided that the requirements in clause 25 are met. This clause is important in that it gives us the flexibility to change the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. Without such flexibility, we would be unable to make changes, to respond to employers needs, which might change over time, or to adjust the bar in the specification so as to better reflect the rising quality of the programme that we expect to deliver. We intend to consult on the content of any modifications, even though that is not a requirement for a statute.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Replacement or modification of specification of apprenticeship standards: recognised English frameworks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: I have no desire to delay the Committee unduly, but these matters are important and it is useful to give the Minister the opportunity to put some of the detail on record.
Clause 24 makes it clear that if a specification of apprenticeship standards for England is brought into effect under clause 22, or an existing specification is modified under clause 23, frameworks that have been issued under clause 12 may not meet the requirements of the new or modified specification. Subsection (1) provides that a recognised English framework that fails to comply with a new or modified specification will not automatically cease to be recognised, and subsection (2) states that orders under clause 22, subject to the negative resolution procedure, may provide for such a framework to cease to have effect as a recognised English framework. My question is simple, and I know that the Minister will have the answer to hand. What is the timetable for that process? Clearly, if there has to be further parliamentary authority under the negative resolution procedure, there will be a time during which the framework still exists before it ceases. What is that time frame, and what issues need to be considered regarding frameworks that fall between the cracks and into that gap?

Siôn Simon: I will just talk through the provisions in this clause. In developing the statutory framework for our apprenticeships programme we have sought to ensure continuity of provision, even during transitions. We recognise that over time the specification of apprenticeship standards for England might need to change and the clause provides that when such change occurs a recognised English framework will not automatically cease to be recognised because it fails to comply with the new or modified specification. However, the clause includes provision for such a framework to cease to have effect as a recognised English framework. Those two provisions are essential to the smooth working of the specification of apprenticeship standards for England and of apprenticeship frameworks. Without them, a change to the SASE could invalidate many existing frameworks, without there being arrangements to replace them.
Equally, there must be the sanction of a framework not being recognised when it has ceased to meet the minimum criteria in the SASE. We intend to ensure that employers and apprentices who start a framework do so in the confidence that it will not change before they complete it, and to ensure that sector skills councils are given sufficient time to make the changes that are necessary to make their frameworks fully compliant. The normal period for consultation will be three months plus 40 days in the House for the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Contents of specification of apprenticeship standards for England

Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. Does the clause stand part debate take place after the vote on the amendment?

Joan Humble: Yes.

Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 25, page 11, line 33, at end insert
(d) must specify that these requirements include some element of supervised training in the workplace..(Mr. Hayes.)

Question put,That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: It is worth saying at this juncture that our considerations are getting ever more exciting. The clause sets out what must be included in the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. Subsection (1) provides that the specification must specify requirements in relation to the content of recognised English frameworks at level 2, known as apprenticeships, and level 3, known as advanced apprenticeships and that it may specify requirements in relation to the content of recognised English frameworks at other levels, for instance level 4, known as higher apprenticeships. The effect of subsection (2) is that the specification must require English frameworks to specify requirements for the issue of apprenticeship certificates, including levels of attainment required for the award of a certificate. It must also require each framework to identify the principal qualification in respect of that framework.
My question raises a matter in order to allow the Minister to put his response on the record. How does this differ from the existing arrangements? I am not clear how these matters are dealt with in law at the moment. Does this mark a significant change from existing practice? Before I speak of excitement too much, I remind the Committee of what Chesterton said about dull men and excitement.

Siôn Simon: The fundamental difference between these provisions and the position in law at the moment is that the provisions are not in law at the moment. It is fair to say that the specification of apprenticeship standards for England will have much in common with the existing apprenticeship blueprint. Obviously the SASE, as we all know by now, is currently out for consultation and one would not want to pre-empt that. But it is reasonable to say that there will be much common ground between the two documents. The difference is that this specification is being put on a statutory basis for the first time in 200 years: the current blueprint does not have statutory force.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Specification of apprenticeship standards for Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: I have a brief question on this. We spoke earlier about consultation with Welsh Ministers and others associated with the Principality. What representations has the Minister received from those offices? What character and form do they take?

Siôn Simon: As I said, I personally have received no representations from Welsh Ministers. The Department has received much representation on various different parts of the Bill, which have been adjusted to accommodate the needs of the Welsh Assembly Government. No representations have been received on this clause. Ministers wrote to the Welsh Assembly Government and other devolved Administrations prior to the publication of the Bill and they made no attempt to amend the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Modification of specification of apprenticeship standards for Wales

Amendment made: 174, in clause 27, page 12, line 30, leave out meets the requirements of and insert complies with.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment amends the drafting of clause 27 to achieve consistency with clause 26(5).

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses28and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Meaning of apprenticeship agreement

Amendments made: 175, in clause 30, page 14, line 1, leave out apprenticeship.
176, in clause 30, page 14, line 5, leave out relevant period preceding and insert
period of three years ending with.

This technical drafting amendment reflects the fact that clause 30(4) is making provision about circumstances in which an agreement will be treated as meeting one of the criteria for being an apprenticeship agreement.
177, in clause 30, page 14, line 11, leave out another and insert an.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 175.
178, in clause 30, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (5). (Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 176.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: We have raced through the last few clauses, but it seems unreasonable to deny the Minister the opportunity to contribute further to our deliberations, given his outstanding performance when he agreed with me previously and again today. I shall not offer any plauditshe said earlier that he was seeking plauditsunless they are fully deserved.
The clause applies to both England and Wales. The apprenticeship agreement will be a contract entered into between the employer and the apprentice. The Government expect it to set out both the on-the-job training and the learning away from the work stations that will be delivered. My first question is a reprise of a question that came up in an earlier Committee sitting and is about the quantification of those terms. Are we going to measure or stipulate the time spent on the job? We have debated that briefly, but I would like it to be clear. The logic of the clause and this part of the Bill seems to suggest that we should. The contract will make clear what role an apprentice will be qualified to hold on completion, and it will stipulate the supervision that an apprentice will receive throughout the period of apprenticeship.
That brings me to my second question, which is about the quality as well as the quantity of supervision. I paint a picturesome might call it a romantic onethat for me sums up, describes and illustrates what an apprenticeship is in the eyes of most laymen, and what it should be in the eyes of those who believe strongly in the apprenticeship system. It is a picture of a willing learner, learning a craft or skill at the sidesome might argue at the feetof an experienced craftsman. We therefore need to know that that craftsman is experienced, qualified and competent to transmit the knowledgethe understandingthat we wish an apprentice to gain. We need to know how long the apprentice will be mentored and what form that mentoring will take.
Subsection (2) sets out the conditions that must be satisfied by an apprenticeship agreement. The agreement must be in a form that is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power
to specify provisions that must
or must not
be included in an apprenticeship agreement,
which is precisely why I am asking these questions. Subsection (4) enables the apprentice to enter into successive apprenticeship agreements relating to the same framework, even where that has ceased to be a recognised English framework.
Given that the clause stipulates those powers, it is important that we know how they will be realised and what they will lead to in terms of quality and quantity, and the contractual expectations of an apprentice and of those who provide training for an apprentice. I hope that the Minister will be able to elucidate, and by so doing, illuminate these matters.

Stephen Williams: I want to make different points to those raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Those of us who at 10.25 am rushed off to Innovation, Universities and Skills questions for a morning of deliberation on such matters, will have heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) ask a question about clause 30. Representations were also made to me yesterday by some non-governmental organisations that had concerns about the clause, although it was too late to table amendments for today. The main concerns were about perceived barriers for people with learning difficulties in fulfilling the requirements of an apprenticeship agreement. We touched briefly on that issue in an earlier debate, but I am asking for reassurance from the Minister that all consideration and support will be given to young people or adults with learning difficulties who wish to access an apprenticeship agreement. If necessary, an assessment should also be made of their needs in order to fulfil the requirements of the apprenticeship agreement.
As Minister for further education, he may know that many colleges do their best to ensure that they offer an inclusive education. If he has not done so already, I recommend that he goes to the National Star college outside Cheltenham, which I visited a couple of years ago. It specialises in the provision of further education and skills training for adults with special needs and learning difficulties. He will know that there is a broad spectrum of special needs and difficulties, and the hon. Member for Buckingham referred specifically to those who may be somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I am simply asking the Minister for an assurance that all consideration will be given to people with learning difficulties or special needs and that a needs assessment will be provided, to ensure that we offer the inclusive opportunities for expanded apprenticeships provision that those on all three Front Benches want.

Siôn Simon: Starting with the last point, yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. We have talked about it. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will talk later about the specific provisions for people between 16 and 18 with special needs. On Tuesday, we talked about the provisions that I think are in clause 111 I may have got the number wrong beforewhich lays down a duty and commits funding to ensure that nobody is excluded or disadvantaged because of a learning disability or difficulty from the many benefits of an apprenticeship.

John Hayes: I know that the Minister is going to deal with the substantive remarks that I made, but before he moves on I would like to address the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. First, I raised those matters on a previous occasion in Committee and the Minister pledged to come back to us with some details, inasmuch as information is collated and available, on the number of young people and others with learning difficulties and disabilities who have apprenticeships. I hope that he will reaffirm his intention to do that.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghams remarks are highly pertinent to this part of the Bill. Does the Minister expect to make the provisions for people with learning difficulties and other disabilities absolutely clear in guidance? Without that, I fear that they may be disadvantaged.

Siôn Simon: I said at the time that I did not think some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman asked for were available. We are looking at the others, but we have not got them yet. The latest data are for 2007-08, when 28,900, some 12 per cent., of those starting an apprenticeship had learning difficulties and/or disabilities and 10,900, some 10 per cent., of those completing an apprenticeship had learning difficulties and/or disabilities.
The Learning and Skills Council individual learner record identifies a range of different learning disabilities and difficulties, from visual impairment and mental health difficulties to temporary disabilities after illness. For learners who consider themselves to have a learning disability or difficulty, that field of the ILR records the learners main disability. If a learner has more than one disability, the main one will be recorded. It would be best to address the hon. Gentlemans comments when we discuss clause 82.
To make a little progress I shall move on to the hon. Gentlemans opening remarks. He wanted to know to what extent we will measure and stipulate the components of the agreement. He said that we had debated those briefly on Tuesday; we have a slightly different time sense. I thought that we had gone into those matters at some length and in some detail, but I am more than happy to repeat the position.
The number that will be specified is 280 guided learning hours, which is in the SASE document for consultation. We expect that consultation to conclude that about 250 of those guided learning hours should be at off-work stations. We do not intend it to specify exactly what the configuration of those hours will be, or in what year they should fall; that will be a matter for employers to agree with apprentices. We do not intend to stipulate, either on the face of the Bill or in the SASEas we went into at some length on Tuesdaythe amount of time spent in the workplace. As I said several times, we consider that to be a truism: an apprenticeship is a job, an apprenticeship will always happen in the workplace.
The quality issue is partly addressed by having a minimum specification of the amount of time that has to be spent in formal tutored guided learning off the work station. The rest of the quality issues that the hon. Gentleman talked about are in, as I am sure he knows, the document that is becoming legendary in the Committee Room, Specifications of Apprenticeship Standards for England, which is currently out for consultation, just in case that little detail had escaped anybody. They can be found on pages 21 and 22 of the document, which the hon. Gentleman described with some witif I may paraphraseas a brief and slim, yet comprehensive and almost elegant document. That is the substance of the answer to his question. Clause 30 allows us to prescribe the form, but does not impose too much detail or too much inflexibility.

John Hayes: First, is ministerial guidance planned on the issues of learning difficulties and disability, as that seems to be critical? Secondly, is mentoring going to be a necessary, essential part of the contract?

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman is to be commended on the tenacity with which he insists on detailed answers to his pertinent questions, the answer to both of which is yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Crown servants and Parliamentary staff

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 34, page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (5).

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 179.

John Hayes: Perhaps I could just beg your indulgence, Mrs. Humble, and thank the Minister for the figures he gave on disabilities and learning difficulties, which I asked for on Tuesday and he was able to provide, briefly, a few minutes ago.
Clause 34 enables the Secretary of State to modify the application of clauses 30 to 33. It deals specifically with the apprenticeship agreementthat is, that the apprentice enters into a contract with the employer and sets out the on-the-work and off-the-work learning conditions. As a point of interest, in the clauses that we dealt with a few moments ago, the nature of that contract changes. The previous contract was a contract for an apprenticeship as defined in common law, which will now change as a result of the Bill. That is a matter for those whom one might describe as the geeks.
As I said, the apprentice enters into a contract and sets out his on-the-work and off-the-work learning conditions in the way we have described. However, that is not the case for Crown servants, members of the armed forces and parliamentary staff. We have tabled this probing amendment, the Minister will be delighted to hear, to determine what specific circumstances would necessitate the use of the power set out in subsection (5), which allows the Secretary of State to modify the Bill in relation to those employees. That examination is even more urgent, as Government amendment 179 proposes to roll that out to include clauses 83 to 91 and the 16 to 18 apprenticeship entitlement. The explanatory notes state:
This power is needed to make the Bill work properly in relation to these classes of people, given their particular circumstances: for instance the fact that they may not have contracts of employment.
Has he properly examined what those circumstances might be, and will he specify them for the Committee to consider more carefully?
Perhaps the Minister would also be so good as to shed further light on why Crown employees may have no contracts of employment. That seems rather curious, certainly with regard to parliamentary staff, whom we know to have contracts of employment, so I do not fully understand why they are included in the list, but perhaps he will know more than I do about that.
Surely the explanatory notes to clause 30, which indicate that apprentices enter into a contract with their employers, would negate the situation I have described. It would be good to clear up this matter on the following grounds: the specific circumstances that would evoke the clause; and whether employees of the Crown have contracts of employment under their apprenticeship entitlement. Those are important matters, although relatively technical. I hope that, following the suave and comprehensive response that the Minister is about to give me, we will not need to push the amendment, but we do need answers to those questions.

Siôn Simon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. He asked some pertinent questions on what is an arcane piece of drafting. The simple answer is that the clause is intended to make the Bills apprenticeship provisions apply to Crown servants and parliamentary staff who do not have legal contracts of employment or, as they are termed in the Bill, contracts of service,I will not go down that geeky road. The provisions of the Bill as drafted would not apply to them because they do not have contracts of service, and a contract of service is a necessary part of the definition of an apprenticeship.
I, too, was a little confused about that and never asked anyone about it, but the conclusion I came to was that parliamentary staff in this context does not refer to the staff and researchers of MPs, although they are Crown servants, but to those we call officers of the House, such as the Clerks and the Serjeant at Arms. The technical reason for Crown servants such as parliamentary staff and members of the armed forces not having contracts of service is that the Crown is, in theory, able to terminate such contracts at will despite any contrary term within a contract. That is seen to be part of the wider rule that the Crown cannot fetter its future executive action by contract.
Although I declined the hon. Gentlemans invitation to geekiness on the matter of contracts of apprenticeship, contracts of service and contracts of employment, I cannot resist noting that:
In one of the leading cases, Dunn v. R, (decided in 1896) the Court stated that employees of the Crown held office during the pleasure of the Crown unless statute provided otherwise. A contract to employ a Crown employee for a fixed term was deemed to be against the public interest and unconstitutional.
On that note[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, from a seated position, I rest my case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is persuaded of the integrity of our intentions and will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: The Committee has moved from excitement to an intoxicating survey of historical legal precedent. There will be people in anoraks with an unhealthy interest in computer games salivating at the Ministers every word. On that basis alone, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 179, in clause 34, page 15, line 28, leave out from or to to in line 29 and insert any of sections 83 to 91,.(Mr. Simon.)

The amendment enables regulations under clause 34(5) to provide for any of clauses 83 to 91 to apply with modifications to Crown servants and Parliamentary staff.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Careers education

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 35, page 16, line 7, leave out from concerned to receive in line 9 and insert
must include a presumption that all pupils aged 14-16 should.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 35, page 16, line 10, leave out apprenticeships and insert
an apprenticeship as a programme of training which leads to competence in a chosen trade, profession or occupation..

John Hayes: Clause 35 specifies that careers advice in schools must give consideration to apprenticeships as an option, but fails to give any grounds on which such advice and guidance would be given. Furthermore, it makes no account of the fact that an apprenticeship is a specific programme of training, relevant to a specific occupation. Our amendment relates advice on apprenticeships to consideration on apprenticeships as a path to a particular option.
This is an important aspect of the Bill. It is widely acknowledged that, if we are going to grow the apprenticeship programme in the way that the Bill intends and the Opposition advocatethe whole House would acknowledge that we have been the champions of apprenticeships, certainly since I have been in my current job

Jim Knight: I am not sure that we would acknowledge that, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

John Hayes: Well, there are one or two people in the deep recesses and far corners of the House who have not recognised that, but we continue to make our case with force so that even they will ultimately appreciate that the Opposition intend when elevated to government, should the people of Britain grant us that great honourto create 100,000 new apprenticeships. That would be a massive boost to the apprenticeship programme.
However, I must not test the Committees patience too much, and I will return to my main theme. In order to achieve the objective of the growth in the apprenticeship programme, it is critically important that we provide the right kind of advice and guidance. That does not apply just to young people, about whom I shall say a few more words in a moment, but to all those who might consider an apprenticeship. It is too easy to categorise apprenticeships around school leavers. However, particularly in the current economic circumstances, adult apprenticeships are a vital means by which people can reskill, upskill, gain new employment, fulfil their potential and gain new opportunities. We need good advice not only for young people, but for all who consider an apprenticeship as a path to an occupation.
The failings of careers advice have provoked a great deal of criticism, particularly concerning the range of opportunities in vocational training and qualifications. Schools too often overlook those pathways in their effort, albeit well intentioned, to ensure that students progress along more traditional academic routes.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman speaks of students pursuing traditional routes. Does he share my concern that careers advice in schools often points females down traditional routes for young women and does not encourage them to consider a broader range of careers and less familiar routes?

John Hayes: Yes. Questions were raised a few hours ago on that matter at Innovations, Universities and Skills questions, which interrupted our Committee considerations. It is absolutely true that the advice that is offered should be gender-neutral. I hate to sound politically correct because I am not politically correct, as you know, Mrs. Humble. That is about as politically correct as I ever get. Every option must be made known to all who might wish to pursue it.
As I am sure the hon. Lady is indicating, the record speaks for itself. There is a gender slant in apprenticeships in different areas. For example, many boys go into engineering. Girls are often directed into hair and beauty or caring roles. That is partly because of choice, but it is also due to the lack of the information that would open peoples minds to alternative opportunities. I endorse the sentiment behind her intervention and I gather from her contributions so far that she takes great interest in these matters.
A more fundamental issue is that we are not balanced in our articulation of the vocational opportunities. Irrespective of gender, we do not make enough of the vocational opportunities. That is a cultural phenomenon. Some people in positions of influenceI do not include the Minister, of coursefail to understand the sense of worth and value that can come from non-academic accomplishment. As a society, we have become preoccupied with the notion that only through academic prowess can people gain a sense of achievement, worth and pride. I do not buy that for a moment.
I frequently visit FE colleges and see the wonderful things that are being taught and learned. I often think, If only I were clever enough not to be academic. If only I were clever enough to be practical, as my father was. I am tied to the route that I guess most members of the Committee have pursued. The careers advice that we offer young people and mature apprentices should be more objective. It should be more comprehensive and open up vocational pathways. It should be more fair-minded in emphasising the value of practical learning and the importance of craft. We must elevate the practical.
As I have already said, there are doubts that that is currently happening. The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, of which we have heard a great deal already, said in its report, Apprenticeship: a key route to skill that
schools fail to inform young people about the opportunities offered by apprenticeship and other work-based training such as Entry to Employment. This failure is further compounded by the failure of government to provide a service that offers basic information on local labour markets, earnings, career prospects and training opportunities. A number of our witnesses expressed concern at the lack of suitable careers guidance and information for young people.
The Bill should have been an opportunity to put that right.
When Professor Alan Tuckett, who is very respected in the field of adult and community education, described the Bill as a missed opportunity, he was not speaking about the particular matter, but he might have been. The Bill is a missed opportunity not only in terms of adult learners or community educationas the professor meantbut in terms of careers advice and guidance. We could have had measures in the Bill that put into place an independent, all-age career service, which sits alongside Connexions, with a presence in schools and colleges up and down the country. In the witness sessions, I made that point to the representative from Connexions, and he broadly agreed with me. I asked whether an all-age adult independent career service of that kind would re-professionalise careers advice, and he answered in the affirmative. When I asked him whether the Government should have been firmer about the matter, he agreed that they should have been more determined to put into place the kind of advice and guidance that is essential if we are to rebuild the nations skills and rejuvenate the apprenticeship system.
In July 2005, the then Department for Education and Skills recognised that Connexions was not able to provide information on training opportunities for young people at formative stages of their school careerthat was in its own review on advice and guidance. The Department was concerned that Connexions was trying to do that, and also provide all kinds of other advice, in particular, to a number of vulnerable young people, who faced many challenges. The effect of creating that jack-of-all-trades has been to de-professionalise careers advice and dilute what it offers to many young people, who might, if given personal information, have considered an apprenticeship or other forms of vocational training.
The alternative vision, as I said, is of an independent careers service for all ages, as it is in other parts of the UKwe are disadvantaged in England in this respect; Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have a different system altogether. The service should also have a presence on the high street, because if we look at the shocking statistics on social mobility, it is clear that those people who have the wherewithal tend to be those who prosper. The most disadvantaged in our societythe most detached economically and sociallyoften do not have that wherewithal because of familial inexperience of the available options, the social groups that they operate in, or simple access to information. By having a paucity of good advice, we cement social disadvantage and frustrate social mobility. Good advice and guidance is essential for giving those who currently have a raw deal the chances that they deserve. As a champion of the dispossessed, hon. Members would hardly expect me to advocate anything other than the best deal for the most disadvantaged of our countrymen.
The clause recognises these failings and the Government have taken some tentative steps in the direction that I have outlined, but they simply do not go far enough. In failing to inform learners about the true opportunities that apprenticeships offer, they limit the ability of studentsspecifically those for whom academic studies is not the best optionto understand the full potential of the vocational pathway.
I shall say a word or two more about the prejudice built into the system. It is true that some schoolstypically independent schoolsoffer extremely good careers advice. However, not many disadvantaged and dispossessed people go to independent schools.

Jim Knight: I do not want to denigrate in any way the fine work of independent schools, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of a consistency in relation to independent schools offering advice on apprenticeships to all of their pupils?

John Hayes: I have no doubt that, given the history of independent schools and the good quality advice they offer, the mechanisms are in place in many of those schools to offer a full range of options to their students. Given the kind of people who are giving the advice, it might be that they slant it in favour of the academic route. However, certainly compared with elements of the state sector, typically more time, resources and energy are put into advice and guidance given in independent schools than in many state schools.

Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that issue. I have, anecdotally, picked up on concerns from people in the further education sector that certain schools, including independent schools, are simply not inviting the FE sector in to offer careers advice. If they do invite them in, they insist that they talk only about the HE options with which they are linked. That cannot be right.

John Hayes: I bow to the hon. Ladys better knowledge. I am certain that if an independent service with a presence in schools and colleges were free to operate and offer the range of advice that I seek, the outcomes would be more positive than the current situation where, frankly, whether someone gets good career advice is a matter of chance, rather than being something on which someone can rely.
I suspect that it largely depends on how advice is handled in the curriculum, which teachers do the job, and the resources that are allocatedtypically, independent schools are much better resourced. However, the hon. Lady is right. The situation may well be as the Minister implies: although independent schools allocate a lot of time to offering advice and it is well resourced, it is skewed towards particular routes.
I want all learners to understand all the options that are available to them. However, as I said, it is also important that we do not close the door on advice when people leave school or college. Adult advice is critical, and the Bill takes some steps in that direction, as I said, but why not have an all-age, independent careers advice service? Why not take this opportunity to re-professionalise careers advice in that way?
We must ensure that children can dream of their future and that those dreams can be made real. They should be free to dream of craft in the way that William Morris did with such superb results. How wrong it is that the political descendants of Morris should place so little emphasis on the significance of craft that they are not prepared to put advice and guidance in place to ensure that a new generation emulates that great mans achievements. Our amendment aims to go some way to achieving that, tying apprenticeships to careers and to a real future for real apprentices, enabling young people and mature learners to see the path down which they can travel if they wish to become vocational learners and the craftsmen of the future.
I hope that the Minister will give a full reply, because advice and guidance, as I said at the outset, is pivotal to whether his ambitions to build the nations skills succeed or fail.

Stephen Williams: This is one of the more important clauses in the Bill. We have 256 to get through, and I doubt whether we can do so if we continue to have such long speeches. The clause is important and deserves a lot of time and consideration. As it is the only clause that deals with information, advice and guidance, it is surprising that it is not right, and that it has attracted a lot of criticism from outside this place. The heart of that criticism is that the Bill requires a careers adviser to consider only what they believe is in peoples best interests. We and many other people believe that that is simply not strong enough, particularly as one of the drivers of the Bill, as we have heard so often from the Under-Secretary, is to enhance the status of apprentices and to encourage more young people in particular to consider apprenticeships and other vocational courses as a viable career option. It is a shame that the clause does not require a careers adviser to mention specifically those opportunities that are open to young people.
Good careers advice should be independent, and that has been touched on. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings thought that independent schools were good at giving independent advice. The advice should be not just independent, but impartial and independent of the setting in which it is delivered. The Minister for Schools and Learners seems to support that. On 22 October 2008, he gave evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Committeemy hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a member, and I used to be a memberand said:
We think that there is sufficient evidence that some schools are advising pupils to carry on in that institution not because it is necessarily the right thing for that pupil, but because it is the right thing for the institution.
It seems that the Minister believes that it is vital that the person giving the advice should do so without regard to the particular interests of the institutionthe school or collegein which it is delivered.
Good advice and guidance should be aspirational and challengingthe hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport mentioned that during Innovation, Universities and Schools questions this morningparticularly in the context of challenging gender stereotypes. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that his political correctness could go only so far, and that advice should be gender neutral. I do not think that is strong enough. There are entrenched differences in the career opportunities that people believe are open to them, and the advice should challenge those preconceptions that people or their families hold. Parents especially may not always see clearly what opportunities are open to their children if they and their families have had the same occupation, and have lived in the same community, for several generations. My father, both grandfathers and all four great-grandfathers were miners; I was the first Williamsto paraphrase Neil Kinnockto go to university rather than down a mine, and I was lucky to be encouraged to do so.
Some stereotypes in the career options taken by young people, particularly in apprenticeships, need to be challenged. On advanced apprenticeships, the Library briefing, which we are using to help us in our deliberations, states that, of the number of entrants for vehicle maintenance and repair apprenticeships, only 1 per cent. are women. I do not know whether the women in the room will sympathise with this, but my women friends often tell me that they feel that garages mislead them about the nature of the work being done on their cars. Indeed, I have often felt that myself, so maybe having more women going into motor maintenance would counter that.
Child care has been in the news today, and 98 per cent. of entrants into child care apprenticeships are women. That means that some young boys may not have a male role model, which could have a detrimental effect on their development. The only occupation that is more or less balanced is hospitality and catering, where 51 per cent. of the entrants are women.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree with the YWCA that that is leading to a gross inequality in wages and lifestyles? Girls tend to go into lower-waged occupations.

Stephen Williams: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I refer back to vehicle maintenance. I am sure that, every time we take our cars for repairs, we have an almighty shock when we discover how much they often cost. Such highly valued, in terms of remuneration, and highly skilled occupations seem to be closed off to young women.

Alison Seabeck: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that many of the skills and trades on offer through the apprenticeship systemplumbing, electrical trades and so onoffer significant opportunities for young women, once they are qualified, to work on a self-employed basis. That offers enormous flexibility to manage children, and all the other things that women often have to do, as well as providing a good income.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which speaks for itself as an entirely valid point.
I support the amendments. It is important that advice is aspirational and challenges stereotypes wherever they are held. In the new educational landscape that we are embarking on, it is vital that by 2013 every young person should be able to access a diploma. Furthermore, it is an aspiration of the Governments that every young person who wants to enter an apprenticeship should be able to do so. We can disagree over whether the 50 per cent. target for entry into higher education is a valid one, but we all want everyone who could benefit from HE to enter into it, which leads me to the importance of progression. Not only is it important that people receive advice on the different academic and vocational pathways that are open to them, but also that, once they access those pathways, they continue to receive inspirational advice and guidance to ensure that they understand the available progression opportunities.
For example, the universities of Derby, Sunderland and London South Bank, which is just across the water from us, already recognise apprenticeships as an entry qualification for HE. I hope that other higher education institutions that now offer foundation degrees and other vocationally oriented higher educational qualifications will look at the new diplomas and apprenticeships as valid claims for entry.

John Hayes: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, who is making a cogent argument, supports our view that there should be a better route from apprenticeships into HE that creates a pathway for a vocational learner from a diploma through to an apprenticeship and beyond? Many will not want to take such a path, but those that will should have it facilitated for them; barriers could be removed via financial support, for instance.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure what the Conservative proposals for smoothing the path from apprenticeships into higher education are, but they sound like a worthwhile objective, which I share.
I conclude by referring to an amendment that for some unknown reason was not selected for discussion. Whatever the nature of the advice and guidance that is offered to young people, it should be open to inspection by Ofsted. Will the Minister comment on how an assessment of the careers advice and guidance that is provided for in the Bill will be made? Much store has been set by it, but how will we know that it is of sufficient quality to deliver the objectives that we all share?

Jim Knight: It is a pleasure to take over the ministerial baton from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I pay tribute to the excellent way in which he started our proceedings. I have discovered a charming and conciliatory side to his characterI knew it was there, hidden away. It is an equal pleasure to respond to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He is iconic of a certain type of parliamentarian. I will not start to guess what type, but he has certainly demonstrated that in our proceedings so far.
I want to put to rest the misconceptions about the effect of the clause and explain how it fits with the duties that are already in place. Legislation under section 43 of the Education Act 1997, as amended by section 81 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which we remember debating just last year, already requires secondary schools to provide a programme of careers education to their pupilsthe change that was made last yearand in discharging this duty, to provide impartial information and to give advice that promotes the best interests of their pupils.
The clause will be underpinned by the statutory guidance that is currently in preparation and which I have been considering. My Department will consult formally on the guidance later in the year, and I expect it to set out core information and advice on 14-to-19 learning options, including apprenticeships, which all young people should receive. I reassure the Committee that every young person will get information on apprenticeships, thanks to the implementation of the amendment made last year, which was implemented through statutory guidance.
Some evaluation of those matters will be included in the self-evaluation process. The delivery of information, advice and guidance by local authorities, as delivered by Connexions, which was also the subject of the 2008 Act, will be assessed as part of the comprehensive area assessment carried out by the local authority.

John Hayes: Indeed, Kieran Gordon, the expert witness from Connexions, referred to the 2008 Act. He said that it might make the matter more assertive. The matter he was referring to is the independent advice and guidance that we have been discussing. Why does this Bill not mirror that in the strength of its provisions? Mr. Gordon feels that it does not go far enough. Is he wrong?

Jim Knight: I will go on to develop that point and directly address it. It is important to establish in the minds of the Committee that every young person will get information about apprenticeships as a result of the statutory guidance. Mr. Gordon has not yet seen the guidance and so he is not in a position to judgeno one isbecause we have not yet agreed it or published it.
Some young people will have specific needs and will want further advice on apprenticeships that reflect those needs. The clause emphasises the duties of schools with regard to apprenticeships by requiring them to consider the best interests of each pupil when giving advice. The effect of the clause will be to ensure that schools provide appropriate and differentiated advice that is tailored to meet the needs of individuals.
Having established that every pupil gets information on apprenticeships, there will be some who are not suitably qualified for them. It would be unreasonable to burden schools and make them give pupils advice and guidance on apprenticeships if they are not suitably qualified. That is an example of why the stance taken in the Bill is correct, when the matter is considered in conjunction with what we are doing in statutory guidance.

John Hayes: That is a good point, but it is not a very good point, if I might say so, because we are talking about a pathway. The sort of advice given to a young person who was not suitably qualified, in the Ministers terms, might be about pre-apprenticeship training, which, once they had gone down a path, might lead to an apprenticeship. I am not sure that we would not give advice about the destination as part of giving advice about the journey.

Jim Knight: I am sure that that is the kind of matter that will be well covered by the information in the comprehensive element of the statutory guidance which we want to see in every school. How those sorts of pathways, as set out in the qualification strategy last year, will affect peoples options later on in life as they continue learning and move into work will be set out in that guidance. I hope that I have briefly and relatively accurately set out for the Committee why we think that we have taken the right decision.
Gender and other equality issues, as explored by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, are important. At the moment, in terms of the apprenticeship routes, some apprenticeships are very much dominated by one gender, and the ones dominated by women tend to be the lower-paid apprenticeship routes. We have recently been raising the minimum apprenticeship wage to assist those working in the care sector and hairdressing, for example.
I hopeit is certainly our intentionthat, through the new information, advice and guidance standard, which will apply to all local authorities, and through the changes that we are making in the Bill and through the previous Act, we will raise considerably the standard of information, advice and guidance for young people. However, those are not the only things that we are doing.
We are establishing a network of advocates from among school leaders through the National College for School Leadership. We are delivering classroom materials and case studies as part of the Departments careers education support programme and making personal, social and health education, which is where much of the careers education takes place, a statutory subject. In addition, 800 14-to-19 briefing sessions are taking place with schools and colleges to explain the options for 16 to 18-year-olds so that there is better information in the school system as a whole. We are currently reviewing the information, advice and guidance element of the schools self-evaluation form in terms of the Ofsted inspection and we are improving the online guidance and services, which so many young people are now using, to improve the quality further.
I was glad that mention was made of the diplomas, which offer routes into apprenticeship as much as into the full range of higher education institutions and into work. The experience so far of those who have been learning through the diploma route is that we have still got a bit further to go on the gender of pupils taking options in diplomas, but there are good opportunities for us to use the engagement offered to learners by their involvement with diplomas. Those learners are really enjoying the diplomas. We are getting positive feedback, which in turn can allow us to challenge things. On the elements of the equality duty, getting more young people of all genders who want to go on to be architects, surveyors, estate agents, builders, electricians or plumbers into the construction and built environment diploma, for example, is a route into an apprenticeship that would help to break down some of the barriers.
Schools could do more to ensure that young people receive advice about apprenticeships. That said, there is good evidence of Connexions offering some success between the autumn of 2002 and 2004. Ofsted carried out four inspections of 28 Connexions partnerships, and 89 per cent. of those were rated as satisfactory or better and 60 per cent. were rated as good or better. Since its inception, Connexions Direct, the national service, had handled more than 1.3 million contacts from young people by the end of last year, with around 25,000 young people now contacting the service. The service is popular and, from assessment and feedback, the vast majority92 per cent.of young people are satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of service that they received. We want to do better, so we are including the measure in the Bill.
Amendment 23 would address some of the points in different ways. I noted that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings did not want to table an amendment on an all-age careers service, so I shall not take up too much of the Committees time responding to that element of the debate. Suffice to say, there are differences between the needs of adults and young people in the issues that they face and the solutions that they require. There is a difference between an all-age service and an all-age strategy. We are in the process of developing our all-age careers strategy so that we can link the common issues, but in terms of the service, one size does not fit all, and it is important that we have discrete and articulated services to suit the needs of different groups in our society.
The amendment would ensure that when young people receive advice and guidance, they have a clear understanding of what apprenticeships are about and what they can mean for developing a career. I am happy to agree that any advice they receive should cover those points, which would help young people come to an informed decision about which route is for them. I shall certainly ensure, as we develop our guidance to schools later this year, that that is achieved.
A different interpretation of the amendment might be that it is another ingenious means by which the hon. Gentleman can perpetuate his contention that the apprenticeships that we have delivered, and will continue to deliver, are somehow less than real apprenticeships. That ground was covered so eloquently and ably by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I do not propose to go over it again. On the basis of my assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, with his customary good grace and good manners, feel able to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: It is true that I am immensely well mannered. I make no comment about grace, because that would be far too bold.

Siôn Simon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that to describe himself in Committee as immensely well mannered is a little vulgar.

John Hayes: I am both well mannered and a little vulgar. That is because I do not come with the gilded history of the Minister of State for Schools and Learnerspublic school, Oxbridge and all that stuff. I share the antecedents of the hon. Member for Bristol, West, which is perhaps why I empathise with his remarks about the importance of giving all young people the best advice, so that we can feed social mobility by that means.
My point about independent schools, which the Minister did not fail to comprehend, but with which he was incapable of empathising, was that if the wherewithal resides with those who are already disproportionately advantaged, we will cement social division and inhibit social mobility unless we redistribute advantage. Advice, information and guidance is critical to such redistribution.
Much of what the Minister said was fair, and occasionally good, but it was certainly not good enough. I do not cite my viewshe might take them to be prejudice and feel that I am partisan on such things. Instead, I cite the expert witness, Kieran Gordon. He could scarcely have been more critical of the Bill. I asked:
Has the Bill gone far enough on strengthening the mechanism by which quality independent advice can be offered to young people?
He said, in a simple sentence:
I do not think it has.
Similarly, I asked him whether the kind of careers service that I have advocated herein would reprofessionalise careers advice as a separate professional discipline. He said, in an even shorter sentence, It would. He went on to say:
The issue we might have with apprenticeshipsreferencing back to those schools with sixth formsis that the young people entering apprenticeships tend to be the same cadre of young people that the school wants to attract back in to do A-levels or the 16-to-19 elements of the diploma.
He said that there can be a conflict of interests accordingly. He also said that the Bill does not go far enough in respect of the ability
to promote and make young people aware of apprenticeships.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 57, Q155 and 156.]
I could go on. What was clear was that Mr. Gordons analysis was altogether closer to that of the Opposition than that of the Government.

Jim Knight: I know that the hon. Gentleman has quoted at length from what Kieran Gordon said and I am sure that Mr. Gordon was an excellent witness. However, does he not recognise that Mr. Gordon did not have the benefit of my excellent contribution to this debate today, where I have explained in some detail the interplay between the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the provision in this Bill?

John Hayes: As I said in an intervention, Kieran Gordon referred to the 2008 Act, and although it is certainly true that he would not have heard the Minister for Schools and Learners todayunless he had the power of prophecy or something similarhe understood that the 2008 Act was firmer about this issue than is the Bill. I think that what he had expected was, as I indicated earlier, a Bill that mirrored the 2008 Act with a firm commitment.
Let me put this issue in context. In 2008, a study by YouGov found that only 24 per cent. of teachers agreed that apprenticeships are a good alternative to A-levels. That is a far smaller proportion than the same survey found among parents, for whom the figure was 43 per cent., or among young people themselves, for whom the figure was 52 per cent.; as for employers, 55 per cent. felt that apprenticeships were a good alternative to A-levels. The Skills Commissions report on progression through apprenticeships, which will soon be published, reveals that teachers consistently underestimate the extent to which young people, parents and employers value apprenticeships. For example, although 47 per cent. of teachers believe that young people think that apprenticeships are not a good alternative to A-levels, only 19 per cent. of young people think that they are not a good alternative.
The 2008 YouGov survey also found that teachers have less knowledge of apprenticeships than of any other learning route, except for the Welsh baccalaureate. I know almost nothing about the Welsh baccalaureate, but I am sure that either the hon. Member for Bristol, West or the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten us about it in due course.
That is why we need this all-age professional career service. The hon. Member for Bristol, West is right that it needs to be independent, but it also must have empiricism and offer advice that is not slanted and gives real emphasis to the vocational pathway. That means talking about apprenticeships to people who are not yet ready to pursue them, so that they can understand where they might end up. If we do not articulate a strong case for apprenticeships at all stages, people will not dream of an apprenticeship as the outcome that they might achieve.
Young people start to think about university long before they can go therewhen they enter secondary school, perhaps even earlier. My own son told me when he was five that he wanted to go to Trinity college, Cambridge. I said, Why Cambridge? He replied, Because it is in the fens and you could still read me my bedtime story and I would be able to come home for my hot dinners. That seemed to me as good a reason as any to go to Cambridge. However, it illustrates that, very early in their lives, people start to dream of what they might achieve. If we do not make enough of vocational pathways, those dreams will be slanted very much by their familiar experience, the social group to which they belong and the interfaces that they enjoy during their childhood.
The amendment, as the Minister fairly said, does not go as far as we would wish. A new clause might do just that. Perhaps we will have a chance to debate one later on. But the amendment would at least take us further than the Minister is prepared to go and further down the line that Mr. Gordon wants us to take. It would take us towards the elevation of the practical, which lies at the heart of all of my considerations of this matter. In so doing it would feed social mobility by adding opportunity to those across society, but particularly those who are most disadvantaged. For that reason, and because of our passion for vocational education, because of our belief in independent, free and fair advice, and because of our support for the careers profession too, which we feel has lost out since it was absorbed into Connexions, we will press this amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 180, in clause 35, page 16, line 16, after under insert Chapter 1 of Part 1 of.

This is a technical drafting amendment to clarify the reference to the provisions of he Bill under which apprenticeship certificates will be issued.
181, in clause 35, page 16, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert
English certifying authority (within the meaning of that Chapter);..(Jim Knight.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 152.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Apprenticeship sectors
2.45 pm

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: Clause 37 requires the Secretary of State to specify apprenticeship sectors. The Government intend them to be based on the current sectoral coverage of sector skills councils which, as we have heard, are employer-led, independent organisations, whose goals are to fill skills gaps and shortages, improve productivity and the skills of everyone in the sectors work force. The Minister spoke earlier about the scope of the sector skills councils and how that might change, as skills needs change and as skills themselves alter. How is that flexibility consistent with the clause?

Siôn Simon: Clause 37 provides that the Secretary of State must specify the sectors, trades or occupations covered by the apprenticeship scheme and that he do so by order. The clause is necessary to the effective function of the apprenticeship scheme. Apprenticeship frameworks need to relate to a particular skill, trade or occupation included in an apprenticeship sector. Places on the apprenticeship scheme for young people need to be in a specified apprenticeship sector and young persons have to choose two sectors. For them to be able to choose two sectors, it needs to be clear what the sectors are and what the choice is, which is why they need to be specified.
Specifying the sectors across which apprenticeship places are to be available will also ensure that opportunities for tackling particular skills gaps or shortages are identified. It will also mean that the National Apprenticeship Service can operate its national vacancy-matching service properly, supported by sectoral knowledge and understanding of the sector skills councils. The clause is therefore critical.

John Hayes: I was wondering whether the Minister would say something about flexibility for sector skills councils. The specification of sectors would presumably need to change if sector skills councils were to broaden their scope to encompass different skills. We spoke earlier about whether that would be affected by the Bill, and if so, in what way.

Siôn Simon: I assume that, because the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to issue an order, if it were necessary in the future to vary the designations of the sector skills councils, my right hon. Friend would issue a fresh regulation to that effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Interpretation of Chapter

Amendment made: 182, in clause 38, page 17, line 8, leave out from authority to end of line 9 and insert
has the meaning given by section 4;.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 152.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Employer support for employee study and training

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 39, page 18, line 5, leave out A and insert
Where an employer does not have acceptable annual arrangements for discussing employees training needs in place through annual performance reviews or other arrangements, a.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 77, in clause 39, page 18, line 23, at end insert
(6A) An employee is also a qualifying employee for the purposes of this section if the employee is a qualified school teacher with responsibility for educating children with special educational needs and who requests training to ensure the needs of these children will be met..
Amendment 11, in clause 39, page 20, line 30, at end insert
(k) a documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the previous 12 months..

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to take over the shadow ministerial baton from my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Henceforth, there will be no more juicy or ursine prose from Opposition Members. Our contributions will become more prosaic and, if I may so, a little dullwith the Liberal exception, of course. I am sure that we shall be hearing plenty of ursine and porcine phrases from Liberal Democrat Members.
Clause 39 is an important provision giving employees the right to request time off to train or study. Proposed new section 63D(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the clause would insert, states:
The application must be made for the purpose of enabling the employee to undertake study or training (or both).
It is refreshing to see a reference to study and training in an education Bill from the present Government, rather than the catch-all words learning or learner, which have become the latest jargon designed to obfuscate rather than to clarify. Time to Train, the consultation document published last year by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, talks about giving employees
a right to a serious conversation with their employer about their skills development.
The Conservatives agree with that right. The proper training is essential in any businessfor example, restaurant staff should know the details of a menu. I am sure that the staff at the restaurant that my hon. Friend was at last night knew the menu backwards and were able to describe it to him extremely well. Other examples showing how the right training is essential include doctors in a GP surgery, accountants providing tax advice and employees fitting components on an assembly line. A business that fails to train and develop its staff will not be successful. Sometimes, however, an employees personal ambition might be overlooked by an employer. An employer might be happy, for example, to let a good kitchen assistant continue in that role rather than let them train to be a chef. Another example could be a staff and associate specialist doctor who wants to train to become a consultant.
The impact assessment states:
Over a third of people with poor literacy and numeracy receive benefits...compared with less than one in ten of those with better skills.
That is why the Conservative party makes no apology for its focus on reading in primary schools, or for its insistence that, instead of the whole-language approaches that have dominated over the past 40 years, schools employ tried and tested methods such as synthetic phonics[Interruption.] I thought that I would get that into my first major contribution to the line-by-line scrutiny.
The impact assessment considered three options: doing nothing, employing a voluntary approach and legislating for a right to time to study. The Institute of Directors says:
the merits of pursuing a voluntary approach were not adequately explored. No evidence was presented to support the implication that employers are not open to training requests, deny employees the opportunity to discuss training needs or do not treat requests seriously. Employees already have the right to request training  there is no bar to these conversations whatsoever.
The IOD adds that
Skills are crucial to the UK's future competitiveness, but so is the maintenance of a low regulatory environment in which business and enterprise can flourish. The introduction of a right to request training is not simply the wrong solution, it adds to the pipeline of impending regulations that will add to the administrative burden on employers. This is undesirable in any case. In the middle of a recession, it is spectacularly unhelpful.
The Ministers response to those genuine concerns expressed by the IOD would be helpful.

Siôn Simon: I hope that before the hon. Gentleman sits down he will share some of his own views on the IODs views, as that will help me to formulate my response.

Nick Gibb: I certainly will. In fact, I already haveI said that Conservative Members support the right to train. Measures could be introduced to relieve the administrative burden on businesses, while maintaining the right of employees to request time to train.
The IOD points out that many businesses hold regular appraisals with their employees, during which employees training needs are discussed. It therefore suggests in its brief to the Committee that
where employers already offer documented annual appraisals which include discussion of training needs, such provision will constitute grounds for fulfilment of the right to request training obligations...Without such a change those employers that already provide opportunities to discuss training needs will become subject to repeat requests for training: a burden that penalises those organisations that already have existing provision for training discussions.
Amendment 11, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, has the same source. That amendment states that an employer can refuse an application for time to study made under proposed new section 63D of the 1996 Act if
a documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the previous 12 months.
We agree with that sensible amendment, which is designed to assist companies that have a good and exemplary approach to training and staff appraisal.
Amendment 103 would amend clause 39 in a similar fashion. The CBI has said that it supports the new right to request training
in principle, but it must be implemented in a way that is flexible for business, with the focus on skills development and not time-off.
It points out that data from the Learning and Skills Council show that business invests about £39 billion a year on training. The CBIs survey found that 89 per cent. of firms have a training and development plan. It therefore wishes the legislation to be clear that
where a firm already has good arrangements for discussing training in place (eg. annual performance reviews), training needs can be dealt with through these existing arrangements without recourse to legislation.
Amendment 103 would therefore insert a preface to proposed new section 63D(1) to ensure that it will apply only if a suitable arrangement for discussing training is not in place. That is a sensible amendment.
We support the objectives of clause 39, which are to ensure that recalcitrant businesses do what they should to encourage their employees to improve their skills, but if we take the CBI figure of £39 billion spent on training and compare it with the calculated benefits of the clause of between £200 million and £400 millionset out in the impact assessment on pages 76 and 77it is clear that current training expenditure is up to 100 times greater than the anticipated benefit of the new right. That shows that the clause is aimed at a minority of businesses, so it makes sense to try to ease the administrative and regulatory burden of the provision for those companies that already have exemplary training and appraisal processes in place.
Amendment 77 was inspired by the National Deaf Childrens Society. It says that
A significant number of parents regularly contact NDCS with concerns that their child is not receiving his or her entitlement to appropriate education. In many cases, when NDCS investigate, it is found that frontline classroom teachers are trying their best in very difficult circumstances, without the required support and advice to meet the pupil's needs.
It goes on to say, for example, that
there has been no guidance published for teachers on how to differentiate the teaching of phonics for deaf children,
even though, a teaching method based on the listening of sounds is clearly inappropriate for many deaf children, particularly those with severe hearing loss.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the point he has just made regarding deaf children shows that synthetic phonics is not always the best method of teaching children to read?

Nick Gibb: It is the best method of teaching children to read. There is no question about that; all the evidence demonstrates it. However, there might be alternative and additional methods for children with specific neurological or aurological conditions. That is not a reason for not applying synthetic phonics in all mainstream primary schools in the country, because the method works for the vast majority of children who do not have neurological or aurological conditions. If we can deal with all those children first, we will have the resources to focus on those with very special needs who require extra help.
The NDCS goes on to say that, according to reports,
many teachers currently spend one morning over a four year course looking at the needs of all children with SENeven though Government figures show that one in five of the school population is estimated to have a SEN.
The NDCS believes that teachers should be entitled to training on how to teach children with special needs. Amendment 77 is a probing amendment that is designed to ensure that the provisions of the clause will apply to teachers who want to improve their skills in teaching children with special needs. If the Minister clarifies that the clause applies to teachers in those circumstances, I will not press the amendment.
I seek the Ministers clarification regarding another group of professionals. The British Medical Association is concerned about a group of doctors known as staff and associate specialistsa grade of doctors that used to be called, more simply, non-consultant career grade. Such doctors might use the provisions of the clause to seek further training to help them progress. The BMAs concern is that an NHS trust might not regard it as beneficial to its operation for junior doctors to improve their skills and progress, because they are too valuable in their current role. However, it would be beneficial to the NHS as a whole if all doctors in that grade could improve their skills.
Proposed new section 63D(4) of the 1996 Act states that the training or study must improve
the performance of the employers business.
The BMA would like clarification of what the business is for the NHS. Does it apply to the trust in which the doctor works, or to the NHS as a whole? The BMA argues that SAS grade doctors need improved access to training to develop the specialist knowledge and skills that would enable them to offer their potential to the trust and the wider NHS. That is essential to the modernisation of the NHS and would deliver improved patient care. The BMA seeks clarification on the definition of the employers business. Is the business the trust or the NHS nationally? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those points.

Stephen Williams: We have several groups of amendments to consider under the clause, so I will be brief in discussing this group. We welcome the recognition of the importance of training, particularly by private sector employers, for the good of businesses and their employees.
I share some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Many British businesses have exemplary records in providing training for their employees. My experience from working in the private sector for large companies and consulting firms for 17 years before becoming an MP was that the quality of the training was often second to none. It formed a superb part of my professional and personal development.
None the less, some businesses do not do their best to provide training for their employees. It is those businesses that we should provide with a legislative nudge, but it is important that the nudge does not unduly affect the performance and practices of businesses that already provide such opportunities. We should ease the regulatory burden on them.
Liberal Democrat amendment 11 reinforces the amendments that were tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Businesses should be able to show that they have good appraisal procedures, which include discussion of the training needs of employees. All hon. Members are employers. A key part of the appraisals that I hold with my staff is asking what training they need to enable them to perform their role to a better standard. I am sure that we all undertake such discussions and that they are documented. The purpose of amendment 11 is to make the provision unnecessary if a training discussion has already taken place as part of the employers personnel practices, as long as it has been held in the preceding 12 months and was documented.

Siôn Simon: I thank and commend the hon. Gentleman for his brevity; I have rather more remarks to make than I would ideally like, but I shall try to get through them. I shall speak to amendment 11, and given that this is the first time that we have spoken about this big issue in clause 39, I shall make a few general remarks about the clause and the policy as a whole. Before I do so, I shall quickly respond to one or two of the questions from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which may not be covered in my otherwise voluminous remarks.
I was slightly hurt and disappointed that the hon. Gentleman chose to read out all those very intemperate words from the IOD, even though he explicitly, on behalf of his party, does not agree with any of them. He only did it because the IOD was beastly about the policy. The CBI, as he knows, welcomes the schemeas do the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democratsand the extra opportunities that it brings for learning in the workplace. I will come on to the teacher issue later, but the basic answer is, yes, teachers will certainly be covered by the legislation and will have the right to request the training that they need to teach young people with all manner of learning difficulties and special needs.
On doctors, the answer is that the employer will be the trust. That is a fundamental principle of the legislation. We are defining an employer and an employment relationship in the normal way that they are defined in law. In the circumstances the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the doctors employer would be the NHS trust rather than the NHS generally. If there is an issue of the sort the BMA highlighted, we can look at the matter again and talk to colleagues in the Department of Health about them looking at it as well. Altering the legislation to change the definition of employer is not the way to address the problem. We decline to do it, but if there is a problem, colleagues elsewhere in government will look at it and I will join them, if necessary.
I shall say a few words about the policy in general. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the £38.6 billion that employers spend on training. In this place, we sometimes forget that employers spend their own money investing in training because they know, more than anybody, how important it is and what a difference it makes to the success of their business. Although I recognise that employers invest a great deal in training, that investment is not universal. Too many adults struggle with low or out of date skills, and about a third of employers do not provide any sort of training for their staff. That is 8 million people a year going without training of any kind. Ultimately, that is what the provisions are intended to address.
Under the provisions, employees will be given a new right to make a statutory application to their employer for study or training. In essence, it is a request to spend time undertaking study or training that will improve their effectiveness at work and the performance of their employers business. The new right is closely based on the flexible working model, with which employers are familiar and which the CBI, at our oral evidence session, described as an outstanding successI am paraphrasing. We have stuck to that model pretty closely, which should make a big difference and make it easier for employers to work with the new arrangements.
Employees will be able to request any training that will make them more effective at work and improve the productivity of the business that employs them.

Charles Walker: What will happen if the employer disagrees with the employee on the effectiveness of that training? What will happen if the employer says, I do not believe that training will make you more effective in the job you are doing or any of the jobs that we would be able to offer you subsequent to that training.?

Siôn Simon: The employer and the employee will need to have a meeting and the employer will have to give reasonable grounds why they do not feel the training is appropriate. It will be for the employer to determine the grounds and what is reasonable.
The right will be of particular importance to employees in organisations that do not operate effective systems for considering the learning and development needs of their staff. Mindful of the need to protect business from excessive burdens, the standard position will be that employees will be able to make a statutory request that the employer needs to consider only once in any 12-month period. Employers will need to consider requests seriously, will need to hold a meeting to discuss the application with the employee where appropriate and will need to respond within a set time frame. Who will cover the costs of the training and whether the employee will be paid during the time spent training are matters to be agreed between the employer and the employee, but there will be no obligation on the employer to meet either. There are a number of acceptable business reasons that an employer can use to refuse a request, including where the training would not improve the employees effectiveness or improve the performance of the employers business. Giving employees a right to a serious conversation with their employer about their skills development will help to encourage and support adults to improve their skills and to rise as far as their talent will take them. The right to request time to train goes with the grain of what the best employers are already doing, as Members have said. It will help to encourage others to follow that example, change the culture and develop the skills we need for the future.
Amendment 103 would have the effect of preventing employees whose employers have in place an annual review system for considering training needs from being able to request time to train. I assure the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that I understand the aims of the amendment and I recognise that many employers are doing good work, which perhaps the legislationand we certainlyought to recognise and appreciate. The amendment is closely linked to amendment 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, which by adding a further reason for refusal to the list of permissible grounds in new section 63F (7) has a similar aim.

Charles Walker: What will be deemed a reasonable amount of time to train? I am sure it is covered in the Bill. Would it be two weeks a year or four weeks a year? What would be deemed the maximum amount of time someone could take off in a year to train and increase their skill levels?

Siôn Simon: The answer is as before. It would be a matter for employers to agree with employees but the employer will have the determining say.
Our approach would not be to exclude employees in a firm operating a good annual review system from the right for time to train, as proposed by amendment 103. The proposal goes against the grain of what we are trying to do, which is to shift the culture and move basic assumptions. The amendment risks making the eligibility criteria too complicated. We think it is important that the right is accorded to every employee who meets the basic eligibility criteria. We do not want to risk putting off any employees who want to exercise that right, particularly those who need it most. In essence, we want to keep the decision over whether to exercise the right with the employee. We want to encourage people to take responsibility for their own training and development and we think employees will be best able to judge whether they need to use the right to access the training they need to get better jobs.
For those reasons, and if we were going down that route, we would prefer the proposal set out by the hon. Member for Bristol, West in amendment 11, which would not deny the employee the right to make the request but would add to the permissible grounds on which an employer could refuse the request, as the employer would already have invested time and effort in considering the employees needs and would have acted on meeting them where necessary.
The aim of the policy has always been to ensure that an employee has access to a serious discussion with their employer about their skills and training needs at least once a year. It is therefore right that as a matter of course we take account in some way of the circumstances in which that is happening, but we do not want to commit to introducing such an additional reason on the face of the Bill.
We anticipate that those who had their training needs addressed following some sort of training review are less likely to feel that they need to exercise the right, so we question whether that is a necessary additional safeguard for employers. The Bill as drafted carefully balances the rights of employers on the one hand with those of employees to make the request on the other. It is important to take time to consider whether adding to the permitted grounds for refusal could upset that balance. We did not consult on the basis of the situation set out in amendment 11, and before we made any changes of the sort proposed it would be important to take account of the views of all interested parties.
The proposed amendment raises a range of second order issues about how to define some of the relevant terms to ensure that it does not create potential loopholes for employers to avoid their responsibilities. What, for instance, would a satisfactory appraisal and development system look like? All those are important issues, and I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that we have considered them carefully, and I hope that hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances that we will continue to do so. I also hope that, while these issues remain unresolved, hon. Members will understand that I do not feel comfortable accepting either amendment today. However, there is a power set out in proposed new section 63F(7)(j) that will enable the Secretary of State to specify additional grounds on which requests may be refused so that we can bring in such a reason through regulation if discussion revealed that there was support for such a measure, and those would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure. I hope that that explanation is welcomed by hon. Members opposite and that, on the basis of the commitments I have made, they will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 77 concerns a different issue. It would include in the Bill a specific reference to qualified school teachers with responsibility for teaching children with special educational needs to ensure that they are eligible to make requests for time to train where training would ensure that the needs of the children could be met. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has told us what underlies the amendment, and I have been happy to assure him that the training needs of such people will be met under the legislation.
I would like to highlight a couple of things quickly before moving on to address how the amendment would affect the clause. The first point worth noting is that all teachers have, as the amendment suggests,
responsibility for educating children with special educational needs,
particularly now that we have more inclusive learning environments. Specially commissioned materials have been created through the inclusion development programme, which is funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, for serving teachers and the assistants who work with them on areas of SEN that we know they find difficult. The first of those materials, on children who experience communication difficulties, was published in 2008, and similar resources on autism are to follow this month.
We are also supporting a series of practical measures for training teachers through the Training and Development Agency for Schools, such as the creation of new study unit material that training providers can use to strengthen those elements in their courses. Funding has been provided to encourage training providers to take up the units, and pilot institutions are working with others in clusters to show how the new resources can be successfully incorporated into existing courses. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is already action in hand to address the issue.
Turning to the amendment and clause 39, I can confirm that, under new section 63D, employees who are teachers of children with special educational needs are treated the same way as other employees. There is no need for specific provision to accommodate them. Teachers will be qualified as employees under these provisions and will be able to make requests for time to train, where they are employees as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and met certain other limited conditions. They must have been employed by their employer for the necessary period specified by the Secretary of State. They must not fall within subsection 7 of new section 63D and, on that basisfinallyI hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I listened very carefully to the words of the Minister. I am sorry that he was offended by the beastly remarks of the IOD. I am happy to cite its views; as a pluralist, it does not worry me that I do not necessarily agree with every word. I thought that it raised some important and necessary points and the Committee has benefited from the IODs views, given that it represents a large swathe of British business.
I am reassured by what the Minister said about teachers, that they will be covered by the provisions in clause 39. That is a welcome assurance, but he underestimates the concerns of the teaching profession about the lack of training for SENhalf a morning in a four year course, though it may well be longer than thatbut the NUT has produced its own report about the difficulties faced by the teaching profession when it comes to helping children with special educational needs in the best way possible.
Regarding doctors, could the Minister confirm that the employer will be the trust and not the NHS as a whole? That will be a disappointment to the BMA, but it will be encouraged by his promise that the matter will be raised with the Department of Health. If he were to participate in those discussions, if the BMA were to press the matter, I am sure that it would be happy to hear that.
The Minister said that the Government were mindful of the need to prevent burdens and that is a reason why he ought to be trying to find a way of incorporating these provisions into the legislation. He argues that an amendment would take away the right to request time off in circumstances where there are annual appraisals. Well, yes, we are suggesting taking away the right to request time off to train where employees have the right to request time off to trainit just makes absolute sense. I listened very carefully to what he said and I detected some softening when it came to the wording of the amendment and that he was more inclined to accept, or was more sympathetic to, the wording prepared by the IOD, which has been tabled as amendment 11. If the hon. Member for Bristol, West were to press amendment 11 to a vote, I am sure that I could persuade Conservative members of the Committee to support his amendment.

Stephen Williams: If we were to move for a vote soon I would be minded to press, with your indulgence, Mrs. Humble, for a Division to take place specifically on amendment 11.

Joan Humble: I understood that that was an intervention on Mr. Gibb. Does he have anything left to say?

Nick Gibb: No, I am very happy. On the basis of that assurance from the hon. Member for Bristol, West, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 103 and I look forward to support amendment 11 when it comes to the Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 39, page 19, line 28, at end insert
(v) the date of the applicants last request for training..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 39, page 19, line 35, at end insert
(d) provide the date of the applicants last request for training..

Nick Gibb: The amendment seeks to put into clause 39 an additional detail that an employee would have to include on what is to become known as a section 63D application. As currently drafted, the employee has to put the proposed subject matter of study for training on his application: where and when it would take place, which would provide or supervise it, and what qualification it would lead to. The amendment adds a fifth requirement, to provide the date when the employee last made a request for training. That is because clause 39 gives the statutory right, as the Minister has just said, to ask for time off to train or study only once in every 12 months, as set out in new section 63F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The IODI am sorry to cite it againargued that such an amendment would make the administration less onerous for businesses, and would also stop the frequency of declined requests on the grounds that they fell within 12 months of the last request made by an employee. It agreed that this would be a very simple addition to a section 36D application and an easy piece of information for an employee to include in his application, but it would be hugely beneficial in terms of time saved for employee years.
Amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, West, is a similar amendment, which we also support. It is important, when introducing and imposing such duties on the business sector, that we, as legislators, do everything that we can to minimise the administrative burden. All Governments claim that they want to do that; the Minister himself said that we want to prevent such measures from becoming a burden. Well, here is a classic opportunity for the Government to help, by simply accepting one or the other of the amendments.

Annette Brooke: In line with the position of the hon. Gentleman speaking for the official Opposition, we do not have any preference for either of the amendments: they say exactly the same thing, though in slightly different places in the Bill. They both try to reduce administrative burden, which is important to all of us. It should be done wherever possible, without hampering the provision of training.

Siôn Simon: I am getting a little confused regarding the amendments. On the previous amendments, my position was that we did not want to put them on the face of the Bill, but we took the point, which we thought was fair, and we were looking into doing it by regulation. I thought that everybody would be delighted, but apparently, the amendments will still be pressed to a vote.
Regarding amendments 104 and 10, we do not think that they are essential, but we agree that it will be a useful right for employers to have, and we firmly intend to achieve the aim by regulation. While it is not a detail that needs to be on the face of the Billit is too fine a level of detail for thatwe intend to achieve it by regulation, as how it is done regarding flexible working arrangements. On that basis, I eagerly anticipate that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will withdraw his amendment, because we are, on this occasion, certainlyrather than possiblygoing to do exactly what he and other hon. Members want, but by regulation.

Nick Gibb: The word certainly specified by the Minister has convinced me that we have achieved what we set out to do. I look forward to that regulation, and on the basis of the Ministers assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 39, page 20, line 10, leave out thinks and insert has reasonable grounds to think.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 247, in clause 39, page 20, line 12, leave out thinks and insert has reasonable grounds to think.
Amendment 248, in clause 39, page 20, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert
(b) the burden of additional costs is unreasonable in proportion to the value to be derived from the proposed study or training;.
Amendment 249, in clause 39, page 20, line 26, leave out insufficiency of work and insert inability to provide sufficient work.

Annette Brooke: I will, of necessity, be rather brief, as you, Mrs. Humble, will appreciate that a handover is taking place, which was not exactly planned, because of the timing of the debate. I will make my points clearly and concisely.
All four amendments in the group aim to make the tests clearer, and provide them in such a way that a clear judgment can be made, where a challenge can either be answered or accepted. Amendment 246 simply adds
has reasonable grounds to think.
to the clause, and that seems much clearer than the employer just thinking, because employers can have all sorts of thoughts, which would be difficult to challenge or rebut in any way. Amendment 247 makes that same point. Amendment 248 is particularly important. If a permissible ground for refusal is the burden of additional cost, how much is that? Is it £1, £2, £10, £10,000? We have to have something to tighten that up and add
unreasonable in proportion to the value to be derived from the proposed study or training.
I have no doubt that that needs to be tightened up, even if the Minister finds it impossible to accept the amendment today. On amendment 249, it is easy to add weasel words to insufficiency of work. It would be much clearer to make the test inability to provide sufficient work. I hope that the Minister will regard those comments favourably.

Siôn Simon: In order for these provisions to work properly it needs to be clear that an employer has decided whether a ground applies. Including the term reasonable grounds to think introduces a level of uncertainty and creates a more complex test. The grounds on which employers may refuse requests are quite extensive and it should be possible for employers to reach a considered view as to whether a ground applies in a particular case, as they already do for flexible working requests. In practice, when considering declining requests employers will have to consider which of the permissible grounds for refusal applies and why this ground or grounds apply. They will then need to explain this to their employee when they notify them of the decision. The requirement for the notification will be set out in regulations.
The flexible working provisions on which this was based work in exactly the same way and they work very well. They also contain a provision that the employer may refuse an application only if he considers that one or more of the prescribed grounds applies. There is no requirement for the employer to have reasonable grounds. However, if the employer does not have reasonable grounds to think that a particular ground of refusal applies, it is assumed that he will not be able to give the necessary explanation in the decision notice and it is open to the employer to challenge the decision on the basis that it is based on incorrect facts.
Amendments 248 and 249 both propose changes to the reasons for refusal in subsection 7 of new section 63F. I sympathise with the intention behind amendment 248, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not necessary to achieve its aim and it would be too restrictive. Accepting the amendment would limit the use of the additional cost reason to an unhelpful extent. It would mean that an employer could cite this reason only where they were able to show that the additional costs were greater than any value to be gained from the proposed study or training. We also think that the provisions as they stand already cater for this.
If an employer carries out a cost-benefit analysis and concludes that the costs outweigh the benefits, this seems likely to mean that overall the proposed study or training will not lead to an improvement in the performance of the employers business. In which circumstance we think that an employer could pretty certainly use the ground in section 63F(7)(a), which states that the proposed study or training to which the application relates would not improve the performance of the employers business. Equally, the employer could conclude that were they to meet the costs in circumstances where no overall benefit was derived, it could have a detrimental impact on the performance of the business. In such a case the ground in subsection (7)(g), detrimental impact on performance, could be cited. Therefore, we think there is ample coverage already to address to scope of these amendments.
Amendment 249 would have the effect of redefining one of the permissible grounds for refusal set out in section 63F(7). Rather than specifying insufficiency of work, it would refer to inability to provide work during the periods that the employee proposes to work. While I understand what hon. Members might mean with this amendment, we do not want there to be any suggestion that an employer would have to seek to provide alternative work for the employee at relevant times such as where the employee suggested a change to their current working arrangements to accommodate the training. We want the sufficiency of work during the period proposed to be considered in the light of the employers current business situation.
Of course there is a need for flexibility and there canand probably will bediscussions between an employee and employer about how to accommodate the training request which might result in some rearrangement by an employer.
The employer does not have to rely on that reason for refusal if they do not want to, but we think that the available reason for refusal is better looked at from the perspective of insufficiency of work rather than the employers inability to provide it. That will be a simpler reason for employers to apply.
I hope that on that basis hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. I am slightly disappointed that we did not make further progress on amendment 248, but at this time of the afternoon, when we want to complete at least this section, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 11, in clause 39, page 20, line 30, at end insert
(k) a documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the previous 12 months.. (Annette Brooke.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 259, in clause 39, page 20, line 37, at end insert
except where that employee is employed by an employer who employs less than 20 employees;.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 183 and 184.

Annette Brooke: According to my information, the amendment refers to line 27, but it should apply to line 37. The suggestion for the amendment has come from the Federation of Small Businesses. It urges the introduction of an exemption for businesses with fewer than 20 employees so that they can continue to hold one-to-one informal meetings, without the need for union representation.
The figure of 20 is based on the number of members that a union must have to be recognised by a business. If we translate this to even smaller businesses, with perhaps three or four employees, it puts the measure in context as to whether it would be practical. The Federation of Small Businesses makes the point that the best way in which to engage small businesses with the policy is to keep it informal, making it easy to identify necessary training.

Nick Gibb: We believe that the amendment is a sensible measure to support small businesses, provided that it is put into the right place in the Bill. According to the impact assessment, 1,019,295 micro-businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees. That represents 83 per cent. of firms, but 20 per cent. of employees. Taking that number up to 20 employees, as proposed under the amendment, the proportion would increase to somewhere between 20 and 37 per cent. I guess that it would increase by about a quarter.
The Government might argue that the amendment would deny this important training right to too many peopleto one quarter of employees; but, we would argue that to lose one employee in a firm of just 10 or 20 people for a period of training could be disastrous for that company. Then, no doubt, the Minister would argue that new section 63F(7) provides grounds for refusal of a request for training in those circumstances, but there is an administrative burden in dealing with the request. The manager of the firm, presented with an official form that purported to give an employee the right to time off, would then be required to look up the provision, read the legislation and determine that he could refuse the request on the grounds of new section 63F(7)(c),
detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand,
which he might then have to prove. Since most people who run small businesses are not lawyers, the manager would almost certainly have to take legal advice to come to that view. It would be better, therefore, to remove small businesses from the provisions all together.

Siôn Simon: I am slightly confused now about which part of the Bill the amendment seeks to amend. I previously took the amendment to be related to the part where it would actually be inserted, rather than the part where the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole subsequently told us she intended it to be inserted. Where it would have been inserted, it would have

Joan Humble: Order. For the Ministers benefit, I read out that the amendment is proposed at clause 39, page 20, line 37. We are debating that part of the Bill.

Siôn Simon: In which case, we are talking not about whether we exempt small firms from the provisions all together, but about whether we exempt small firms merely from the part of the Bill that deals with the opportunity to take a colleague along to the meeting at which the right to train is requested. On that basis, although I shall go into a little bit more detail, I shall take a little more convincing if hon. Members seriously believe that the Bill requires an exemption to the provision for people to take a friend to a meeting.
Evidence shows that, of employees without a level 2 qualification, about one quarter are in a workplace with 10 or fewer people. It therefore follows that employees in smaller businesses are more likely to be in need of support when discussing with their employer a request for time to train. We also want that right to be as simple as possible for employers to operate, so setting up different rules for different groups of business would add complexity and break the close alignment that we seek with flexible working, which has been recognised as a factor in making the new right easier for employers to work with.
We therefore see no reason to restrict who is given the right to have a companion go with them to meetings about new section 63D applications. I also draw the hon. Gentlemans attention to the way in which the provision has been defined in the indicative regulations that were provided to the Committee. They state that a companion must be, first, someone selected by the employee, and, secondly, a worker employed by the same employer as the employee. That is quite straightforward and reflects our policy intention.

Nick Gibb: I hope that the Minister, before he concludes his remarks, will speak to his own, Government amendments.

Siôn Simon: I shall and, indeed, was just about to seek permission to speak to Government amendments 183 and 184.
Amendment 183 relates to the scope of the regulation-making power in new section 63F(4) and how it can be applied to people who act as companions. The amendment would make a technical change to new section 63G(1) to make it clear that the regulation-making power at new section 63F(4) was wide enough to enable regulations to be made about the rights of those who act or seek to act as companions not to suffer detriment, and about unfair dismissal. It is clearly important that those people receive the proper protection when they act as a companion under the provisions.
Amendment 184 is a minor technical amendment that would simply ensure that new section 104E in the Employment Rights Act 1996 was consistent with the other provisions that clause 39 inserts. The amendment would correct a minor error in new section 104E, replacing learning support with section 63D, the term that is used elsewhere in the clause. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their support for the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that my colleagues will peruse it carefully and consider whether they should pursue the amendment further at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 183, in clause 39, page 20, line 43, leave out and (b) and insert to (c).(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is about those who accompany, or seek to accompany, employees to meetings about section 63D applications. It ensures the regulation-making power at the new section 63F(4) (inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996) includes power to make provision about companions right not to suffer detriment and about unfair dismissal.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 39, page 21, line 12, at end insert
(d) fails to attend more than two consecutive periods of study or training..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 39, page 21, line 14, at end insert
(4) Failure to start, attend or complete the agreed study or training shall constitute permissible grounds for an employer to remove the awarded time off..

Annette Brooke: Both amendments seek to allow employers to act if the employee is not using the time off to attend the course, which is perfectly reasonable. I am slightly concerned about the many cases where there will be good reason for not attending a course, such as being rushed into hospital, so would prefer some softening on the edges of the amendments, which both seek to do the same thing.
I taught in a college of further education for many years, so I am aware that students can turn up for the first session and then not again for a long time. It is important that we give employers the backing to support training; therefore, some provision needs to be made, but possibly it should be a little more humane than what is in the amendments.

Nick Gibb: Briefly, these IOD-inspired amendments were tabled to tackle the very real issue of what happens if the employee, having been granted time off to study, simply fails to attend courses. They impose a duty on the employee to inform their employer that they are not attending the course. That seems entirely reasonable, and we support the direction of travel taken by the two amendments.

Siôn Simon: First, I was not at all surprised to learn that the hon. Lady spent a long time in a further education college. She revealed herself in the past few minutes to have picked up a set of competencies, as they are now called, which show her to be practical, resourceful and resilient under testing circumstancesskills which I do not doubt she honed in the FE sector.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tells us that people need to have their training attendance ensured and enforced, and they certainly do. Our firm belief is that those provisions are in place in the Bill, and that the amendments are unnecessary.

Bill Wiggin: Is it the Ministers understanding, therefore, that if an employee did not turn up at his training and did not say anything about it at all, that would be grounds for a gross misconduct charge or lead to dismissal?

Siôn Simon: I cannot say whether that would lead to dismissal. Would it be a disciplinary issue? Yes, and I shall explain why.
The hon. Member for Leominster will be fascinated to learn that proposed new section 63H, which is to be inserted in the Employment Rights Act 1996, states:
The employee must inform the employer if the employee...fails to start
or
fails to complete the agreed study or training...undertakes, or proposes to undertake, study or training that differs from the agreed study or training in any respect.
That includes a requirement to inform the employer of any change as to when the agreed study or training is to take place.
The effect of the section is wide-ranging. It will capture instances of failing to attend more than two consecutive periods of study or training, as proposed by the amendment, if it had been agreed that the employee should attend those periods. It is better to include this broader requirement than to set what might be arbitrary minimum requirements for attendance, which might not in any event apply to all training requests that are granted. Many will not involve more than one period of study. The measure will give employers the assurance and oversight that they need to monitor whether employees are fulfilling their responsibilities.
That brings us to the nub of the issue and amendment 13. If employees are required to report the fact that they failed to start or to complete the agreed study or training or that they undertook a different course of study or training, why is there no corresponding power for employers to withdraw support if those events occur? In our view, legislating for the circumstances in which an employer could withdraw their support, having previously agreed to a request, would make the provisions complicated and difficult to operate. It is not done like that in flexible working, which works very well. If we gave employers a right to withdraw support in the Bill, we would have to give employees a right to appeal in the Bill. In the interests of flexibility, it is best to allow the employer and employee to reach an agreement between themselves on the circumstances in which the employee should no longer be able to continue with the agreed study or training. That will enable the individual circumstances of the employer and the nature of what has been requested and of the absence to be taken into account.
In certain circumstances, the employers normal disciplinary procedures may apply if the employee fails to attend the agreed training. In other circumstances, in which the employees request was only for a short course or on-the-job training, the employers withdrawal of support would be unlikely to be so significant. The employer may consider taking into account the failure of an employee to attend a course when dealing with future requests. We plan to issue guidance to employers and employees to assist with this aspect of training. We shall consult stakeholders and business representative bodies on the guidance before it is issued.
There is one other minor point, which I hope hon. Members will not mind me mentioning here. It is not accuratehon. Members generally have not done this todayto refer to time off when considering training under these provisions. This is a right to request study and training. In many cases, that will not be time off. It is important to bear it in mind that time associated with the new right will be spent training for the good of the business. On the basis of all those comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and his assurance that there will be guidance with full consultation of stakeholders. That will give the various employers associations adequate opportunity to comment on the issues. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 184, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out learning support and insert section 63D.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment makes new section 104E (which is inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996) consistent with other provisions inserted by clause 39, which refer to a section 63D application.

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (Ms Butler.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 17 March at half-past Ten oclock.